Res Ipsa Loquitur

« Late Night Funny | Main | Jumping Mules »

October 10, 2004

Ultimate Deconstruction

Jacques Derrida is undergoing the ultimate deconstruction.

He dead.

Read into that what you will.

Not overly familar with Derrida?

Mr. Derrida was known as the father of deconstruction, the method of inquiry that asserted that all writing was full of confusion and contradiction, and that the author's intent could not overcome the inherent contradictions of language itself, robbing texts - whether literature, history or philosophy - of truthfulness, absolute meaning and permanence. The concept was eventually applied to the whole gamut of arts and social sciences, including linguistics, anthropology, political science, even architecture.

The putative father of much of postmodernist thought, you might say. I was required, during my undergrad years, to read more of Derrida (and his trusty sidekick Heidegger) than the law allows. I grew to hate him. He destroyed my ability to enjoy reading. Once throughly indoctrinated in his school of thought, it was impossible for me to read fiction without 'deconstructing' it. It became an conditioned response that took me years to unlearn.

In a Los Angeles Times Magazine article in 1991, Mr. Stephens, the journalism professor, wrote: "He gave literature professors a special gift: a chance to confront - not as mere second-rate philosophers, not as mere interpreters of novelists, but as full-fledged explorers in their own right - the most profound paradoxes of Western thought."

"If they really read, if they stared intently enough at the metaphors," he went on, "literature professors, from the comfort of their own easy chairs, could reveal the hollowness of the basic assumptions that lie behind all our writings."

They sure jumped into that with both feet didn't they? Oblivious to the irony of someone who believed that one could not communicate by writing being such a prolific author, literature professors shredded everything in sight. Oblivious too to the fact that sometimes a story is just a story, and that the 'hidden meanings' they were so gleefully deconstructing said more about the deconstructor than the author. But really, what could be more Derrida than that?

I was often sorely tempted as a goof to write a thesis on the rampant feminism inherent in "Gone With The Wind"....but feared I would be unable to keep a straight face. It wouldn't be that hard to do. Scarlett was forced by a rigid patriarchal society into a series of marriages with the wrong men, but overcame her oppression by using those men to become a successful businesswoman & landowner....which thereby gave her the freedom & power to escape her bonds. Her ultimate liberation came when, with the death of Melanie, she realizes that her desire for Ashley is a false dream perpetrated by society....and casting away the shackles of repressive societal mores, she retreats to her power base to contemplate her pursuit of what she really wants.

See how easy it is to make a story 'say' anything if you start with the presumption that it has no meaning except what you, the reader, give it?

Not that there's not a grain of truth in what he said. You, as a reader, do filter the author's words through your own set of beliefs, prejudices, etc. Being aware of that has greatly improved my critical reading skills. But that doesn't mean that as a reader you cannot really understand what the writer was trying to communicate. If words are useless as a means of communication, why do we keep using them?

Because I am trained in a profession in which words are both my tools and my weapons, I think they're pretty useful.

You just have to be careful how you use them.

Posted by Rita at October 10, 2004 07:16 AM

Comments

Posted by: John at October 10, 2004 02:42 PM

Posted by: rita at October 10, 2004 03:51 PM

Posted by: La Femme Crickita at October 10, 2004 06:15 PM

Posted by: rita at October 10, 2004 06:27 PM